I will support our coach on this decision, but...

Yes, the decision on QB is one that you have to be pretty comfortable with given our HC's background with in Green Bay. From what I have seen on film in the limited action he had, I think he does have the awareness and pock presence of an NFL starter. I'd go so far as to say a quality starter in fact. The one negative that seemed to concern me is his actual arm strength. I wasn't impressed with the velocity on his passes, but they did get there.

 

Why? I watched the game. It was clear both teams were playing to win. MOST people agree with me, but you're acting like it's so obvious that it doesn't even merit address? Bad form.

I can see that. As I've said before, I think Brandon Weeden is our best bet and Ryan Tannehill is only a little less attractive than picking Matt Flynn. I'm not shutting down the option of taking a rookie. I think the Dolphins do have a unique opportunity with Flynn though. You talk about being able to mold a guy, well they've already molded this guy for four years. And now he's available. You've already skipped a step, if you get Matt Flynn. And with his intangibles, having won a championship, having brought his team back from deficits, performed the best in the most important games, having made plays in the 4th quarter, having learned behind the best quarterback in the league and been involved with a championship winner at the NFL level on top of the NCAA level...what's not to like here? He's going ot make the right plays at the right time in the games, AND be an efficient 90+ passer rating guy? What's the catch?

I think you and I just disagree what really constitutes "talent" for that position. That position is 80% mental. The decisions I see him making not just about where to throw the ball but how and when to throw the ball, all that belies a guy that sees things on the field and makes very high resolution decisions, which is what you need.

We clearly just have different priorities on what constitutes quarterback talent. You're all about the arm strength and sexy track speed, and that's fine, but I just don't agree with that.

 

please read my post above with ALL of Flynns starts and his passer rating Etc... those 90+ rating games were two out of the10-12 other starts hes had.. yes preseason but shouldnt the lack of starters also play out on the defense you are facing? hes play AMAZINGLY well in the two games (NE, Det) other then that he has been average.. also he doesnt seem to get rid of the ball quick enough.. or it could be the o-line but he sure gets sacked ALOT

 

My opinion on Flynn is that he is an extremely well coached QB with some physical limitations that limit his upside. He seems to understand the offense and make quick decisions. He doesn't have a rocket arm, but he has the ability to make all the throws. He seems to throw a very catchable ball. He has good to very good accuracy and the passes are well placed. He has decent pocket awareness, but no more than average ability to extend the play. By all accounts he has good leadership skills. He can be very productive in Philbin's system and at a minimum should be a good QB. I can't say that he'll ever be an elite QB. IMO he will probably end up between a Cassel and Schaub. I would say that warrants a starters contract, but not an elite QB contract.

Personally, I prefer Tannehill b/c I think he has elite QB potential. Unlike most college prospects these days he has operated in a pro system. I would say that other than Luck, he has operated the most in a pro system. Weedon, I vacillate on. I think he has more elite potential than Flynn, but is not as safe of a pick. He will be coming from a different offense and he will have to adjust to the NFL. That adjustment should be less difficult b/c he has probably already learned how to be a professional, but there's always a speed adjustment. Weedon doesn't have the advantage of youth though, so he will also have less time to adjust. I currently have it Tannehill, Flynn, Weedon, but Flynn and Weedon are a close call for me.

 

I'm aware of his preseason performances. And I've done a lot of studies on preseason performances in the past. But a couple of points to make:

1. A passer rating is not really meant to be calculated using sample sizes of only 5 or 10 attempts or something like that. You get WILD fluctuations and a bunch of meaninglessness. Let me give you an example. At one point this preseason, Chad Henne had two single-game preseason passer ratings of 83.9 and 87.8. Yet, what was his combined passer rating? It was 71.2. The problem was his first preseason game involved only 8 attempts. This shows how meaningless it can be to look at games with few passing attempts. Being in equities research, I can say that usually a rule of thumb for these types of formula stats (alpha, standard deviations, etc) being statistically significant is 12 data points.

2. Flynn only had one preseason game with 12+ attempts this year. He had a 100.7 rating in that game. He had 118.6 rating in another game in 2010, as well as an 88.1 rating and a 50.0 rating. He had no preseason games with passer ratings of statistical significance in 2009. In 2008, he had a 117.6 passer rating in one game, and 84.8 passer rating in his first game action as a pro. That's an average single-game passer rating of 93.3, with a cumulative total preseason rating of 86.0 (105 of 175 for 1166 yards, 7 TDs, 2 INTs). He's also been sacked 16 times for -103 yards, lost 4 fumbles, and rushed 16 times for 76 yards.

3. Having processed preseason performances by a TON of quarterbacks in the past, I can tell you that his 86.0 cumulative preseason rating qualifies him among franchise level passers. What I noticed in those preseason studies is that while having a high preseason rating does not in any way guarantee regular season success, having a low preseason rating almost always signals poor regular season success. There seemed to be a line of demarcation somewhere in the 80's, so Flynn's 86.0 is fine along those lines, and his 93.3 individual game average is good.

4. All told if you want to include everything, he has thrown 187 of 307 for 2181 yards, 16 TDs, 7 INTs for a career passer rating of 90.3. Is this not a good career rating? He's also been sacked 29 times for -165 yards, lost 6 fumbles, and rushed 47 times for 95 yards and 1 TD. He's played in 9 games with statistically significant (12+ attempts) single game passer ratings, and had 50.0, 62.5, 84.8, 88.1, 100.2, 100.7, 117.6, 118.6 and 136.4 single game passer ratings. That's a 95.4 individual game average passer rating (median 100.2), with a 90.3 cumulative passer rating.

Am I supposed to be unimpressed by that? Because it looks pretty impressive to me.

 

Did you write that sentence in all honesty or were you intentionally being obtuse?

The very next week in the playoffs, the Lions played a game against the New Orleans Saints and gave up 626 yards and 45 more points. I guess the Lions weren't really trying in that game, either...right?

And so let me get this straight. The Packers players surrounding Matt Flynn were mailing it in, and had no real motivation to play well in that game, with the defense giving up all kinds of yards and touchdowns to the Lions, letting them get to a lead, etc. Why doesn't this make Matt Flynn's performance even MORE impressive? Your logic is not sound.

So you believe Matt Flynn's physical skill set throwing the football is as limited as Chad Pennington's? I disagree with that, and I think many, many other people would as well, including and especially NFL coaches and GMs who already told Jeff Diamond that they see Flynn as having "good to very good" arm strength.

 

You're taking this too personally. That wasn't an insult even though you're making it out to be one. Your argument DOES boil down to the physical skill set, Ryan Tannehill's having better arm strength and faster track speed. That wasn't a transfiguration of your argument. Your argument is that you'd rather have the coaches build Ryan Tannehill up because he's got better tools and therefore they can build him into a better player than they built Matt Flynn.

What does Tannehill have that Flynn doesn't? Better intangibles? Uhh, no. I don't think anyone would argue that considering Flynn's history winning a NCAA Championship and bringing his teams back from behind, throwing 4 TDs in the Championship game, etc. Does he bring better mental accuity to the table? Certainly not, especially considering what Flynn has shown on an NFL field versus what Tannehill has shown (lack of anticipation, etc) on a college field. Does Tannehill bring better accuracy? I don't think so, I'm not sure who would look at their pro throwing and say that. Better pocket presence? Again, no. Better handling of pressure? Doubtful.

What Ryan Tannehill brings to the table that Matt Flynn doesn't is he spins the ball better, is a bigger guy, and runs faster. That's fine. I respect that. I know pro scouts that think the same way, they like the guy that spins the ball better and has more tools. It's not an insult to put it out there and identify that as what your argument is breaking down to. I know scouts that would take your side of it. I just don't agree with that.

 

Couch...no disrespect intended but the author of this is a fan from another forum. He has spent a lot of time putting together stats and basically putting the kid's stats all in one place and I am grateful to him, but in the end it's another opinion piece...He uses limited stats to project long term results Flynn may (or may not) have... It was interesting and helpful, but it's an opinion piece and should be taken as such...

This is getting 'out of hand' as you said because in effect, I think we are all agreeing that there is risk in assuming that Flynn is a 'franchise' guy based on what we have from him thus far. The only advantage we (the Dolphins organization) has is Philbin's intimate knowledge of the kid. Is he worth taking under the assumption that he's may only be a QB somewhere in between Cassel and Schaub ?? That's what Philbin/Ireland have to assess and decide. The problem with looking specifically at stats in the NFL is that they don't account for the surrounding team.

The question to ask is can this kid direct Philbin's offense successfully enough that he's worth the money that will be put out and stop the QB carousel that has been the identity of this organization or should we go the draft route and only have the guys' college stats to evaluate on (Tannehill or Weeden--most likely guys that will be available to us)? The answer is ambiguous and elusive, although with Tannehill, we also have some intimate knowledge available.

The thing is, I can't say with conviction, like Deej has been, that Flynn is not the guy to go with or is more of a risk than Tannehill. We've all just been trying to convince Deej of that because he's been so adamant about his side of the argument (for lack of a better word). That said, if we take Tannehill and he turns out to be the answer for us, I'll be just as excited as if Flynn turns out to be the answer...and if Deej wants to say " I told you so!", I'd certainly give him his due...gladly...

 

That's a fair point. Matt Moore deserves similar dissection.

On the same bases, Matt Moore has the following:

-9 qualified individual-game PRESEASON passer ratings, averaging 63.5 with a median of 67.2
-A cumulative preseason passer rating of 70.4
-26 qualified individual-game REGULAR SEASON passer ratings, averaging 84.8 with a median of 84.0
-A cumulative regular season passer rating of 80.1
-Total of 35 qualified individual-game passer ratings, averaging 79.3 with a median of 75.2
-A cumulative total passer rating of 77.8 for his preseason and regular season career

As a reminder, here were Matt Flynn's stats on the same bases:

-6 qualified individual-game PRESEASON passer ratings, averaging 93.3 with a median of 94.4
-A cumulative preseason passer rating of 86.0
-3 qualified individual-game REGULAR SEASON passer ratings, averaging 99.7 with a median of 100.2
-A cumulative regular season passer rating of 92.8
-Total of 9 qualified individual-game passer ratings, averaging 95.4 with a median of 100.2
-A cumulative total passer rating of 90.3 for his preseason and regular season career

Now, obviously the "ten times the sample size" declaration is a big exaggeration. It's more along the lines of about 4 times the sample size. But, the larger point about sample size, I will absolutely grant you...Moore has had more opportunities than Flynn.

However, to call Matt Moore's numbers "similar" is just an absolute, bold falsity. Those numbers are similar in the way that John Crotty is similar to Michael Jordan.

I thought I'd made myself pretty clear. I think the Dolphins have three ways they can go here that would be good options for them. They are to draft Brandon Weeden in the 2nd round, sign Matt Flynn, or draft Ryan Tannehill.

My personal preference would be to draft Brandon Weeden because I believe he's a better quarterback than Matt Flynn, has a boat load of intangibles in his own right, and he's only about 2 years older than Flynn so neither guy is really going to give us 12 to 15 years or anything like that. With Weeden here you can use the saved $7 million in cap space to pick up a player that will be worth it to add to the team long term, and you can still use that #8 or #9 overall on a nice player. However, Matt Flynn is awful tempting in relation to Weeden, so it's not one of those things where I could be upset if they did one as opposed to the other. Flynn's also got the intangibles and he's already learned this offense, whereas Weeden would have to learn it and get used to NFL speed. That makes Weeden more like 3 years older than Flynn rather than 2 years older. They both have bad decision percentages to reckon with, IMO. They both have pro tangibles, though Weeden throws in tighter spots with just a little bit more confidence than Flynn. Then again, Flynn has better feet and more escapability. I don't know where Weeden's fundamentals will be once he gets used to NFL offense, but I do know that Flynn's fundamentals such as ball fakes, etc...are excellent. It's really a tough one.

They're both about the same price. I expect Flynn to require $12 million to sign and maybe an additional $5 million first year salary before you've got other option bonuses kicking in around 2013 and you have to make a decision. But Brandon Weeden costs a #40 overall pick and time commitment, so that's a significant cost as well. When I had to translate salary cap to draft pick value before, I said that I consider $7 million in cap space to be worth about a 3rd round pick. A mid 3rd is worth 190 points on the trade value chart. The #40 overall pick is worth 500 points. Those ratios match up. If $7 million is worth 190 points then the #40 overall pick is worth $18.4 million. That means the $17 million total first year commitment (signing bonus + salary) to Flynn is actually a little cheaper than Weeden, but by a negligible amount.

The option that runs 3rd place for me, but is not an option I'd be unhappy with, would be drafting Ryan Tannehill at #8 or #9. I think this has some disadvantages relative to the others. For one, Ryan Tannehill is not the quarterback that Matt Flynn and Brandon Weeden are because right now I haven't seen the intangibles. I haven't seen that 'it' factor. I think he spins the ball well and throws with confidence but he doesn't see the field with the accuity that Weeden and Flynn do. I think when you get right down to it he's not all that much more athletic than Flynn, either. But he is bigger, and that will help keep him from fumbling as much as Flynn. On top of that you've got the cost factor which I consider to be far more expensive at a #8 or #9 overall pick than Flynn or Weeden. That's at least 3x more expensive in my eyes, between the trade value chart and the time commitment you HAVE to commit to Tannehill, as opposed to Weeden and Flynn who will be expected to show their wares right away or be booted out the door. You draft Tannehill and you're probably stuck with him 3 or 4 years no matter how he's performing. That's EXPENSIVE, in my eyes.

But it's also a gamble, in the good way. If he's good right away like those other guys should be then you've just gotten yourself good QB play for probably the next 12 years as opposed to 6 or 7 with Weeden and 9 or 10 with Flynn. That's a significant payoff. The potential reward is basically Brandon Weeden x2. But what are the chances of getting that reward? That's the key.

Overall I could see myself waffling between Weeden and Flynn, not necessarily waffling over to Tannehill though. But I think all three are good options and so when someone comes out guns firing and essentially saying that Matt Flynn is a bad option and the only reason you'd support the idea is just on blind faith that you support the coach, I'm going to disagree with that. Fact of the matter is I think Flynn's earned more than that.

 

So then you admit it was REALLY impressive that Matt Flynn was able to win that game when he got essentially zero help from his defense?

You've explained why the Green Bay defense was mailing it in, why do you accuse the Lions defense of mailing it in? Wouldn't it just be that they were trying and couldn't keep up? The very next week they had virtually the same performance against the Saints offense.

 

That's something I do put quite a bit of value on. That's probably what puts Tannehill as the top choice for me, outside of Luck. I also believe that the instincts he has shown portend those intangibles and coupled with everything else he could end up being the best of the bunch eventually. But as I've said several times, I wouldn't be disappointed with any of those three.

 

I did not know he was a fan on another forum, I take no disrespect either brother.. We all fight the good fight... What I was getting at was simply putting more stats out there then just the NE game and the DET game... Sorry if I misled anyone..